Below are the League of Women Voters of California’s recommendations on the 14 propositions appearing on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Recommendations are based on League positions developed through study and member consensus, and the LWVC Board of Directors carefully reviews each measure before taking a position.

Support Proposition 1: Veterans & Affordable Housing Bonds

Funding from the 2018 bond for affordable housing programs has been fully utilized, leaving a backlog of projects waiting for financing for years. Many families in California are still struggling with high housing costs, which has led to an increase in homelessness and overcrowding. Public funding is essential to provide safe and stable housing for low-income households.

Proposition 1 authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing and homeownership programs. Additionally, it allocates $1.25 billion, also through general obligation bonds, for veteran mortgage assistance via the CalVet Home Loan Program, which is expected to be repaid through borrowers’ mortgage payments.

Support Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

Proposition 2 enables California to save more money during strong economic years to protect schools and other essential services when revenues decline. The state’s budget can vary significantly from year to year, primarily relying on personal income taxes, including taxes on capital gains. Capital gains are the profits earned from selling stocks, businesses, real estate, or other investments. These taxes generate significant revenue during robust financial markets, but that income can quickly diminish during economic downturns.

Prop 2 would help California prepare for these fluctuations. It would allow the state to build a larger rainy-day fund and require it to save more when capital gains revenues are unusually high. This would provide California with a stronger financial cushion during recessions, natural disasters, public health emergencies, and other challenging times.

Saving more during prosperous years can help prevent substantial cuts to public services during tough times and reduce the need for emergency borrowing and other difficult budget actions.

Support Proposition 3: Children’s Education & Health Care Protection

Proposition 3 safeguards funding for schools, health care, and other essential services by maintaining California’s current income tax rates for the top 2 percent of taxpayers. If Prop 3 does not pass, those rates will decrease in 2031, resulting in an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion annual reduction in state revenue. Importantly, Prop 3 would not change tax rates for anyone today.

About 40 percent of this revenue supports schools and community colleges, while the remainder funds Medi-Cal, other health and human services, and state budget reserves.

California should not provide its highest-income residents with a multi-billion-dollar tax cut while schools, health care, and other essential services face significant financial pressure. Prop 3 simply asks the top 2 percent to continue paying the same rates they currently pay. The League strongly supports this measure because it protects vital services, helps California endure economic downturns, and preserves the fairness of the state’s tax system.

Support Proposition 4: California Fair Elections Act

Elections should be won through ideas and merit, not bought with money. In California, personal wealth and access to large donors have become unofficial criteria for public office. Qualified candidates who lack wealthy networks often miss opportunities, while candidates and officeholders spend too much time seeking large donations.

Proposition 4 offers Californians a way to change this dynamic. It lifts California’s near-total ban on public campaign financing and allows state and local governments to create voluntary public financing programs. This measure does not create a financing program or provide campaign funding on its own; each jurisdiction will decide whether to adopt a program and how to design and fund it.

Public financing can make small donations more impactful, giving candidates without personal fortunes a fairer chance to compete and enabling them to spend more time listening to voters. By reducing the advantages held by incumbents, wealthy donors, and special interests, these programs can lead to more open, competitive, and accountable elections.

Moreover, public financing can help introduce candidates who better represent California’s diverse population. Latino, Asian American or Pacific Islander, and Black Californians make up nearly two-thirds of our population yet remain underrepresented in local government across much of the state. High campaign costs create barriers that keep deserving candidates out. When voters have the opportunity to choose candidates who understand their communities and reflect their interests, they have more reasons to participate in the electoral process.

Proposition 4 also ensures the protection of public funds. Candidates must demonstrate broad grassroots support and agree to spending limits. Funds allocated for education, transportation, or public safety cannot be used for campaign financing. Programs cannot favor incumbents or discriminate based on party affiliation. Additionally, public funds cannot be used to cover legal defense costs, fines, or to repay a candidate’s personal loans to a campaign. The measure also triples the maximum fine for illegal foreign contributions in California elections.

Proposition 4 empowers all California communities to create elections in which voters have more power, while wealthy donors and special interests have less influence.

Support Proposition 5: Recall Election Reform for Statewide Officers

California’s recall process allows voters to remove a corrupt or ineffective official. However, it should not serve as an easy pathway to state office for a replacement candidate backed by only a small fraction of voters. Current recall rules allow this to happen, as the same ballot that decides whether to remove an official also determines a replacement based on whoever receives the most votes, even if that number does not constitute a majority.

Proposition 5 aims to fix this inherent contradiction in the recall process. Voters are asked to remove an official through a majority vote and then choose a replacement based on whoever gets the most votes—often in a crowded field with many candidates and no requirement for the winner to achieve half the votes. This loophole can be exploited easily. For example, in 2021, if the recall against Governor Newsom had succeeded, the leading replacement candidate would have taken office with just 28% of recall voters’ support, clearly illustrating the problem.

Proposition 5 restores the recall process to its intended purpose: determining whether an official should remain in office. It closes the loophole by removing the replacement candidate vote from the recall ballot. If a recall is successful, the vacancy would be filled through succession, appointment, or a subsequent election decided by a true majority. These are the same rules used to fill any other vacancy in state government. A recalled official can still run for office again in the future. This reform enhances democracy by keeping the decision-making power with voters.

In essence, Proposition 5 promotes fairness and upholds majority rule. It safeguards accountability while eliminating a system that can grant power to candidates that most voters did not choose.

Oppose Proposition 37: Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of New Homes

California needs to build more homes and make homeownership accessible for more families. The League of Women Voters of California has advocated for these objectives for decades and supports Proposition 1, which aims to provide $10 billion for affordable housing and homeownership programs, along with $1.25 billion for veterans’ home loans.

While Proposition 37 addresses a significant barrier—the down payment—it does so by introducing a second mortgage that buyers would generally be required to repay monthly.

This could help a family purchase a home but may not make it affordable to maintain long-term. Buyers would be responsible for repaying the Proposition 37 loan alongside their first mortgage, property taxes, insurance, repairs, and other costs. Voters would not have access to information about the interest rate, loan term, or monthly payments before approving the program.

Additionally, this program could exacerbate racial and economic divides rather than specifically targeting families facing the greatest challenges. Generations of housing discrimination have already left many Black and Latino families at a disadvantage, making it crucial to implement strategies that genuinely address these barriers rather than perpetuating them.

Oppose Proposition 38: Bonds for Immunology Medical Research

Medical research can save lives, but Proposition 38 is not the right way to fund it. This proposition would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research, requiring the state to make annual debt payments of between $500 million and $600 million for about 20 years. These payments would come from the General Fund, which also finances schools, healthcare, and other public services.

Borrowing is an unsuitable way to fund ongoing scientific research. Bonds are better suited for long-term investments, such as building infrastructure. According to the Legislative Analyst, Proposition 38 would ultimately cost about 10% more—after adjusting for inflation—than paying for the research upfront.

Additionally, Proposition 38 would commit billions of dollars to one field of research for years. Approximately half of the funds would be allocated to a single UC-affiliated research institute, while the other half would support a grant program, with at least $4.2 billion designated for research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s. Scientific opportunities and public health needs are constantly evolving. State funding should remain flexible to respond to these changes rather than locking in billions of dollars to a single field through a ballot measure.

The prospect of research royalties does not justify taking on $8.4 billion in debt. When voters approved $3 billion for stem-cell research in 2004, supporters touted potential royalties as a means to offset public costs. However, by 2022, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) reported only $15.6 million in its licensing and royalties fund. Proposition 38 again points to potential revenue from research, but the Legislative Analyst notes that the amount and timing of such revenues are uncertain.

California can support essential medical research without committing taxpayers to decades of debt and restricting future funding options for pressing public needs.

Oppose Proposition 39: Prohibits Voting Without Government-Issued ID

Proposition 39 is a partisan effort to further President Trump’s voter suppression agenda, built on false claims about our elections. This measure aims to make voting more difficult and allows politicians to decide which voters count. Right-wing billionaires have invested millions to place it on the ballot.

California’s elections are already secure. Voters affirm their citizenship under penalty of perjury, and officials verify identities during registration, perform in-person checks, and match every mail ballot signature.

This proposition introduces a new registration hurdle. Millions of existing voters could be required to re-register to designate a government ID for mail voting, such as a driver’s license or Social Security number.

It also raises the risk of identity theft. Voters would need to write the last four digits of their ID number on the outside of their ballot envelope, alongside their name, address, and signature.

Furthermore, valid ballots could be discarded. If the ID number on the envelope does not match the designated number, the mailed ballot would not be counted. A single incorrect digit or a blank field could invalidate a ballot, with no assurance of notification or opportunity to correct it. In Texas, similar laws led to one in eight mail ballots being rejected, resulting in those voters being less likely to vote again.

Proposition 39 would require ID checks every time a voter votes in person, even after officials have already verified their identity. In other states with similar laws, many voters who were turned away had valid IDs but simply did not have them on hand.

This creates a modern-day poll tax. While the ID may be labeled “free,” there are hidden costs in terms of transportation, childcare, time off work, and fees for obtaining the necessary documentation. Seniors, students, low-income workers, voters with disabilities, and voters of color would be disproportionately affected.

Moreover, valid IDs still have to match. Nearly 30% of U.S. adults have changed their names, predominantly women. Californians who change their names due to marriage and transgender voters whose identification may not be updated could be turned away despite holding valid IDs.

There is also a risk of wrongful purges due to bad data. Citizenship checks would likely rely on unreliable federal databases that may incorrectly flag eligible citizens for removal from voter rolls.

Increased ID checks would lead to longer lines and slower results. The additional requirements and potential lawsuits would further delay election outcomes, giving election deniers more time to spread disinformation.

Implementing Proposition 39 could cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually. New systems, staffing, free ID cards, audits, and legal challenges would all need funding while California is already facing budgetary issues.

Do not allow President Trump and right-wing billionaires to dictate whose votes count.

Neutral Proposition 40: Billionaire Tax

Proposition 40 proposes a tax on extreme wealth to address urgent needs, but its one-time structure conflicts with sound public finance principles and risks long-term revenue loss.

As the federal government reduces support for hunger relief and access to basic healthcare, Medi-Cal coverage and CalFresh benefits for millions of Californians are at risk. The state must step in to fill the gaps. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on billionaire wealth, with 90% of the revenue directed toward healthcare and the remaining 10% allocated for education and food assistance.

Oppose Proposition 41: Limits on New State Taxes & Requires Special Tax Audits

Proposition 41 would place revenue from new state taxes under the Gann Limit’s rigid constitutional spending cap, making it more challenging to fund essential services and respond to changing needs. This measure would apply to any state tax enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026.

The League opposed the Gann Initiative in 1979 because its spending limit was too inflexible to ensure adequate government services in an uncertain future. Proposition 41 would extend this constraint to new tax revenue. This is particularly concerning for voter-approved initiatives, which typically cannot be altered by the Legislature without another vote from the public.

Additionally, Proposition 41 would require audits of programs funded by new or increased special taxes, including programs such as public campaign financing that may not receive General Fund support. If a new tax excluded its revenue from the Gann Limit, the state could not impose, collect, or enforce that tax. When the state approaches the limit, Proposition 41 could prevent all the revenue voters approved for a specific purpose from being allocated to that purpose.

The audits mandated by Proposition 41 would incur additional state costs, estimated by the Legislative Analyst’s Office to be in the low millions of dollars annually, growing over time. The General Fund would cover the cost of a pre-election audit if an initiative fails to qualify or is rejected by voters. New programs could also be challenging to evaluate before they are implemented.

Moreover, Proposition 41 is designed to take precedence over any conflicting initiative on the same ballot. If both Proposition 40, the Billionaire Tax measure, and Proposition 41 are approved, and Proposition 41 receives more “yes” votes, courts may determine that the two measures conflict and may prevent Proposition 40 from becoming law. Such litigation could delay a final determination.

Oppose Proposition 42: Limits New State Taxes on Personal Property

Proposition 42 would enshrine broad new restrictions on state taxing power within the California Constitution, limiting the state’s ability to address future needs. The ban would extend far beyond retirement savings, prohibiting new state taxes on the ownership or control of various personal properties, including stocks, financial assets, business interests, art, intellectual property, retirement accounts, and other savings and assets.

Proposition 42 would also limit retroactive state taxes, including new taxes based on conduct, activity, or status that occurred before the tax took effect. The constraints would be difficult to amend in the future. Because they would be embedded in the Constitution, changing them would require another vote from the public, even if a tax that seems unnecessary today may be appropriate under different circumstances in the future.

Like Proposition 41, Proposition 42 is designed to prevail over any conflicting initiative on the same ballot. If both Proposition 40 and Proposition 42 pass, with Proposition 42 receiving more “yes” votes, courts may find the measures in conflict and prevent Proposition 40 from becoming law, with a court challenge likely causing delays in final determinations.

Oppose Proposition 43: Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services

Proposition 43 would complicate efforts for communities to raise revenue for public services by permitting a minority of voters to block local tax measures. This proposal seeks to amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote for any new, increased, or extended special tax put forth by local voters through the initiative process. Maintaining a simple majority allows most voters to make these decisions and provides communities with greater flexibility to respond to evolving needs.

Oppose Proposition 44: 90% Health Care Spending for Nonprofit Safety-Net Clinics

Proposition 44 could diminish access to health care for Californians who already have limited options. This measure would impose a stringent spending requirement on nonprofit safety-net clinics that serve low-income and uninsured patients. Clinics that fail to meet the requirement could face substantial penalties or even closure, potentially shifting patients to other public safety-net providers and increasing public costs.

Under Proposition 44, affected clinics would be mandated to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services. Currently, clinics report spending an average of about 80%, though this percentage varies. The Attorney General would determine which expenses count toward the 90% requirement, starting with existing federal reports.

Clinics that fall below the 90% threshold would be obligated to pay the state the amount of the shortfall. While they could request a temporary waiver or recover the money if they later comply, the financial pressure could jeopardize clinics that serve communities with already limited access to care.

A rule intended to direct more money to patient care should not endanger the safety net itself. Proposition 44 could exacerbate health disparities rather than mitigate them.

Oppose Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects

The League of Women Voters of California has always recognized the importance of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This act mandates environmental reviews for projects aimed at creating new housing, education, health, and public safety facilities, as well as clean energy, transportation, and water projects. These reviews help identify potential environmental impacts and outline measures to mitigate any adverse effects.

However, the League understands that CEQA has sometimes been used to delay or derail large projects. While the League supports some streamlining of CEQA requirements, we believe that the proposed overhaul under Proposition 45 goes too far.

Proposition 45 is a lengthy and detailed statute that would significantly alter CEQA for specific “essential projects.” It introduces strict timelines, limits public participation with unreasonable deadlines, and eliminates critical environmental analyses. This change would affect large-scale infrastructure projects and their associated components, applying the same time constraints as for smaller “essential projects.” Consequently, this increases the likelihood of rushed studies, incomplete analyses, a lack of feasible alternatives, poor interagency coordination, diminished public participation, and hasty decisions made to meet imposed deadlines without fully considering the wider implications of the projects.

Current statutory exemptions and expedited processes are already in place—many of which the League supports—making Proposition 45 unnecessary and flawed with its prescriptive approach and inflated promises. Furthermore, Proposition 45 reduces opportunities for public engagement. Voters are being asked to approve this lengthy and complex statute through a ballot initiative, which would make any subsequent changes or adjustments difficult. Legislative amendments would require a two-thirds vote in each house and must align with the measure’s original purposes; more extensive changes would necessitate another vote from the public.

Visit the League of Women Voters for more information: https://lwvc.org/